I am so glad that San Francisco owns her...what an embarrassment for California.___________wv = "hodge" One half of hodge podge: Alteration of Middle English hochepot, from Old French, meaning stew; see hotchpot.

Forget the Balanced Budget Amendment. I want an Amendment that states that anytime the Government cannot pass a budget (preferable balanced or maybe a surplus) than no member of Congress or the President may receive a paycheck, and this pay cannot be made up at a later date.

Nancy Pelosi, weighed in on the “debt ceiling” negotiations the other day: “What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”

The Tea Party should concentrate on state legislatures, that's where the action is, and if enough state legislatures become conservative/libertarian friendly, then that opens up the possiblity for a few narrowly targeted amendments to strengthen the bill of rights and reaffirm the federalist nature of our republic, in opposition to the federally dominated mess emanating from DC.

The middle *moved* when the economy tanked and Pelosi is annoyed that it's not business as usual.

*cry*

But no one believes her, and no one believes Reid, and no one believes Obama.

"Compromise" in Dem-speak means not paying attention to your own constituents. Boehner obviously did NOT please "the most conservative members of his conference." The most conservative members of his conference voted NO.

If the "middle" is something that Pelosi feels comfortable with, then it's not the middle, it's the LEFT.

Precisely. This is a battle that will go on through November of next year, and probably longer.

By 1994 the Democrts had been in power since 1930, except for the odd year of 1946, when many strange elections occurred around the world, and a copuple of years in the 1980, when the Seante went Democratic. They have come to think that a Democratic majority is ordained by the Lord, and the Gingrich victory in 1994 was just a similar aberration to the previous Republican interludes, just worse. It is going to take a while for them to realize that the world has changed; the "independents" that used to be just Democrats who felt the regular party was not far enough left for them, now constitutes a subastantial portion of the electorate, and mostly "moderate," i.e., they will vote for the "most qualified candidate" of the moment, depending on how they feel about things, such that the pretty much wash back and forth between the parties, and a big win in one election, by no means amount to a "mandate." By the next election, they can wash right back to the other party again, if they think your party is too far left or right for them, or just wrong on some particular issue, or they just plain decide they do not like you.

Pelosi's way of running the House, pretty much guaranteed that the House would go Republican in 2010, but you will have a hard time convincing her of that.

sorry Ann, the Democrats have compromised enough. Potential cuts to social programs for instance and the Republican's can't give an inch on revenue? You and the crazy anti-Obama crew that comments on this site are totally oblivious to multiple polls that show most Americans want a balance of cuts and revenue.

I'm sure you're in the $250,000+ bracket that benefits the most from the current tax system so why the hell would you care about the middle class?

Speaking of dark sides, I notice that Boehner is usually photographed in what seems to me to be interesting light. Center lit? Not sure. But always he has interesting lighting. Now there's a photo of him walking and the light is shining up at his face. He can never look dark. Those eyes and that tan give him a look that is all about the beach.

...court the most conservative members of his conference, rather than work on a bipartisan compromise.

This is where the terminology gets confusing, because Boehner clearly compromised with the most conservative members of the House, and he certainly didn't get all of their support, which "court" would lead you to believe.

The Democrats aren't mad because Boehner isn't compromising, he is compromising, just not with them.

Forget the Balanced Budget Amendment. I want an Amendment that states that anytime the Government cannot pass a budget (preferable balanced or maybe a surplus) than no member of Congress or the President may receive a paycheck, and this pay cannot be made up at a later date."

The honest politicians need their salaries. The dishonest ones think that salary is peanuts compared to the riches of corruption. Many of the democrats are incredibly wealthy.

A balanced budget amendment is simply the solution we need. I worry about a congress desperate to make ends meet in their personal lives with Obama's culture of crony corruption.

However, I think there's a middle ground. Remove the fringe benefits of office if there isn't a budget surplus. No Rayburn gym. No sweet Capital Hill restaurant (just the low cost stuff for staff). No travel budget, certainly none overseas. And require them to use a timecard to show up at 8 am and leave at 6 pm, monday through friday, every day they expect to be paid. If they go to their home district, they should have to punch in and out in their district office. These 'do your job first' measures would only take effect if the last year's budget was not in actual surplus (projections do not count).

The "dark side" must refer to "black" rather than "red", as it is used in accounting.

Heck, you yourself went to the dark side when you voted for Obama. HEY OHHHH!!!

Okay, that was racial, which of course, makes it racist these days, but anything or anyone who opposes King Pussypants is racist these days. Bring it on, you unaccountable nation destroyers - you think we can spend, borrow and tax as if there is no tomorrow, and anyone who stands athwart history is a called a racist. You are all as petty and stupid as mz appears to be. Wear your ignorance proudly.

This is how a Progressive builds a belief and then translates it into the idealogy.

They start with a clever demonizing and ridiculing attack, if it catches on they repeat, repeat, and repeat...

Now it's a belief and assures the life of the idealogy.

Right Wing Extremists, Tea Party Terrorists, hobbits/dark side...all attempts to build a new belief that the group think can rally around.

Gotta tell you, I think the alternative media, blogs, Breitbart, Beck,talk radio, Fox News have just debunked the mystic by educating everyone on how it works. Now when they bring out the big guns like Pelosi, its just laughable.

Minority Leader Yoda, clearly has gavel envy. Speaker Vader weilds the big stick. Look for Debbie Wasserman Leia (on a good hair day) to ride her broomstick to the rescue, while little Harry Skywalker belatedly deiscovers that he is the spawn of Satan.

Curious George said "Nancy Pelosi, weighed in on the “debt ceiling” negotiations the other day: “What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today."

@Lex:The point was that compromise means moving closer to the middle and not away from it.

You just might want to consider Ayn Rand's powerful paragraph about the fallacy of seeking the middle.

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two “extremes” at the opposite ends of our course,then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, “moderate” middle—with a “moderate” amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a “moderate” amount of government handouts to the poor—with a “moderate” respect for rights and a “moderate” degree of brute force—with a “moderate” amount of freedom and a “moderate” amount of slavery —with a “moderate” degree of justice and a “moderate” degree of injustice—with a “moderate”amount of security and a “moderate” amount of terror—and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles,consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise."

There's a great line from Louis L'Amour on the subject, "Every time someone has asked me to be reasonable, I've found what he really wants is for me to turn my back on my principles".

In other words, going over to the dark side is what Republicans do when they actually act like Republicans.

Note also that the Demos are the ones filibustering Dingy Harry's bill in the Senate. Not only will most of the Republicans not vote for it, but may we assume he can't even get his own caucus to line up behind it?

And if Pelosi Galore wants to "end this theater of the absurd", she ought to quit sharing Botox shots with Lurch.

PS Just to show even Politico can tell the truth once in a blue moon, they give us this bit of wisdom, "Don’t anybody forget for a minute, we didn’t have to go through this," said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). "This is a made up battle, made up crisis here."

"I'm sure you're in the $250,000+ bracket that benefits the most from the current tax system so why the hell would you care about the middle class?"

You mean you assume I'm in the category that already pays most of the taxes. But the weight of taxes is why I don't work in the summer. I accept my 9-month salary. It's not worth it to do so much of my work for the government. The system already motivates me not to do all the work I could. But you'd like to disincentivize me even more.

sorry Ann, the Democrats have compromised enough. Potential cuts to social programs for instance and the Republican's can't give an inch on revenue? You and the crazy anti-Obama crew that comments on this site are totally oblivious to multiple polls that show most Americans want a balance of cuts and revenue.

Does it matter at all that what you want has no chance whatsoever of solving the problem?

Does it matter that it's impossible to tax Social Security & Medicare "as we know them" into solvency?

Does it matter that the polls tell us the "American People" are all for solving the problem - as long as someone else's taxes are raised & benefits are cut?

You might as well say 65% of people polled support repealing the law of gravity.

You and the crazy anti-Obama crew that comments on this site are totally oblivious to multiple polls that show most Americans want a balance of cuts and revenue.

And that includes the 70% who favor a balanced budget amendment ? I didn't think so.

Lefty pea brains talk about the high tax years after World War II (Krugman) but never show you the graphic that shows revenue has stayed constant at about 18% of GDP since WWII. No matter what the rates are. They call those tax shelters and we would go back to that era if Obama gets re-elected.

@gadfly As usual, Rand's prose is as clotted and dull as her thinking.

If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two “extremes” at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road.

But since it's not true that "dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two 'extremes' at the opposite ends of our course," the rest of the paragraph is pretty much moot. Ta-dum!

Only in Randville does a "dictatorship" consist of congressmen debating with each other and with the President over deficit spending. If your argument is really that Reaganesque/GHWBesque/Clintonian tax increases are akin to slavery and communism, well, then I guess you're a person on fire producing a counterweight to a meme...but I say it's spinach. Heavy memed spinach on fire.

Okay, I'm joking about the "Go Galt" thing, but incentives are incentives and they're immutable. We talk like someone sits down and thinks about how hard they should work or just where the cost/benefit balance starts to tip the other direction, but who actually does that? People generally know what is worthwhile and what is not and all it really takes is a half-assed attention paid to your taxes and with-holding. No one needs to spend any appreciable measure of brain power deciding that working for little to nothing is just dumb.

So why do other people insist on believing, contrary to all evidence and common sense, that anyone will continue to work "according to their ability" for nothing? We're even trying to condition young people to work for nothing by requiring mandatory "volunteer" work for graduation. No one is fooled by this. Charity is charity and theft is theft. "Mandatory" is not "voluntary."

Tax people who can chose not to produce. Gut businesses and cry that there are no jobs. Stand with your arms elbow deep in goose guts asking, "Where are the damn golden eggs?"

mz: "I'm sure you're in the $250,000+ bracket that benefits the most from the current tax system so why the hell would you care about the middle class?"

I am a millionaireandbillionaire so I am certainly in this category. But you know what? I drive a car that is over twenty years old. You? I do not have a flat screen TV. You? I do not have a bass boat or a skidoo or a ski boat. You? I do not have an espresso machine. You?

When I observe the middle class and their spending habits I am not persuaded to be sympathetic to their plight. Ditto most of the poor.

The professor made the point about not working in the summer because she is not interested in feeding the tax beast. Well, I am about done for the year myself and if you raise my taxes I will take off a bit earlier still. It won't hurt me a bit, but it will impact those who rely on me for business.

Lex: That is exactly how good negotiators work. They do not move to the middle, they back up when presented with something stupid. Otherwise the first bid will always be preposterously high. There is a thing called game theory into which you should have a look.

The compromise was to slow the rate of insolvency (and destruction of principally middle-class wealth) and it was intended to purchase time for the left and center (which is the proper classification of American Conservatism) to reconcile reality and promises of instant gratification; and to determine a reasonable compromise between individual dignity and the desires of individuals suffering from delusions of grandeur (and their dependents).

America's left is passing through projection and is well on its way though the displacement phase.

As for Pelosi, her projection reached its climax when she incorrectly described American Conservatives as "Nazis".

The Nazis may have started as a nationalist movement, but they were always left-wing totalitarians conceived and developed on the principle of exceptional dignity (the antithesis of enlightenment), which was later corrupted to enforce a superior dignity. They constructed an elite class in order to bolster their egos and to simultaneously unify and divide the population. They appealed to the "working class" with promises of instant gratification.

A full recall of history and current events does not favor left-wing ideology (or those who embrace its principles). Despite their semantic games in service of distorting people's perception of reality, we will ultimately be judged on the soundness of our principles; and therein lies the challenge.

Will the distortion of reality, properly framed, be sufficient to overcome a rational review?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time. Many cults and religions have been very successful at manipulating perception in order to realize their preferred reality. However, the real problem stems from promoting doctrines derived from false principles.

The means to our end will be determined by people's choice of totalitarian principles or moral knowledge; if they respect or reject individual dignity; if the entrepreneurs, managers, and workers, will properly play their respective parts in our economy.

Sorry, Pelosi, but it is you who reject individual dignity and it is you who devalue human life. So, it is you who represent the "dark side". Why not sacrifice another virginal human life while you stand at your altar lecturing people who hesitate to join your cult?

I was trying to point out that those who spend their political lives straddling a fence named "compromise" are often deluding themselves as to the morality and soundness of their positions. "Moderates" do not need reason -- they require only a coin.

Let me encourage you to read the entire Rand essay. You just might find it interesting to see just how the other side thinks.

Back in the day of the high tax rates on "the rich," the boss I worked for had a little joint venture investment firm going on the side with a couple of his buddies.

I remember a couple of instances when we were laughing at him for crying about not being able to accept very nice offers for properties they owned, because they all were already in the top bracket, and the profits on the sale would largely just be a donation to the federal government.

O.K., it's hard to feel sorry for these guys, but the reality is that these properties should have been developed, but remained just lying there as weedlots. This was not good for the community either, and also cost the community directly in the effect it had on sprawl, etc.

Met a guy last year - he knew a lot about boxwoods - who heard I'd been living in the nation's capital for a while. He said he went to a Tea Party rally in September (not sure which one he was talking about), so he made sure that I knew where he stood. I didn't expect anything one way or the other. But then he proceeds to tell me what a fine resource the national arboretum is - how he converses daily with their boxwood expert, and damn it's a shame they might be cutting back. Then he tells me that at the Tea Party rally he got a little bored and went to the museums around the mall. "And they're all free!" Then he tells me he loves Amtrak. The concluding statement about DC was that his niece got a government job with the state department and now she's telling the whole family that they gotta get a government job.

@gadfly: Thanks for the "encouragement," but I'm perfectly familiar with how "the other side" thinks.

And I proud to say that I am exactly the kind of Milquetoast (small-d) democrat Rand detests. I like democracy BECAUSE OF, not in spite of, the fact that it is inefficient, clumsy, gradual, and "compromisey." The idea that compromise = caving is mere willie-measuring.

No, compromise is not (sort of by definition) a guarantee of moral virtue. A government of any stripe that acts efficiently in order to enforce its idea of moral virtuousness scares the living bejesus out of me. (And yes, that definitely includes the left.)

Randites/Bachmannites sound far too much like Marxists for my comfort--all they have to start doing is shouting "ENHANCE THE CONTRADICTIONS!" and they'll be more or less indistinguishable.

"The USA has already spent that money -- contracts, ect. Not a good idea to tell your creditors to go jump in a lake."

So? It's still a massive compromise from what the constituents of those Congresspersons are demanding in the way of fiscal responsibility. What is the principle here? When debt and contracts are entered into foolishly that all of a sudden there is a politically-neutral necessity of eating that? A "bail them out" mentality with zero cost?

People are struggling with past bad decisions in their own lives and where is their magic "get out of jail free card?"

Perhaps it has come to the point where the only solution to massive and unprecedented government spending is to raise the debt ceiling, but to what extent was that the *plan*? To what extent was putting off any sort of budget or agreement to handle that debt the *plan*?

Maybe someone thought that simply spending more money would solve the economic problems, jump start the economy and bring in revenue, but it didn't work that way, did it.

Now we've got even more debt and an economy that hasn't budged and no one bothered to make any of the so called "hard choices" or "eat your peas" and now, suddenly and UNEXPECTELY we're in a position where we're forced to raise the debt ceiling and because it went that far, it doesn't count as giving in to the other side?

Really?

Wow. Wish in my personal life all I needed to do was to let things go to crisis, buy more than ever before rather than less, and call it all good.

edutcher - "When Little Zero wants to rape the taxpayer, he goes after the backbone of the middle class - the small businessman."

The view of the hero small businessman as the backbone of the middle class is as fallacious as the myth of the Hero CEO responsible for all American prosperity the Hero entrepreneur didn't cause.

The small business person is a component constituency of the middle class but not a part larger and more important than other components of what is the American middle class. Engineers, teachers, nurses, pilots, farmers, government apparachniks with college degrees. Utility workers, accountants, ministers, the store manager, 2.8 million scientists generally found in goverment, truck drivers with shipping lines, universities, large companies. All the drones in the cubicles doing mundane things to support themselves and a family more often than not. The other employees of large companies or skill-position government workers from firefighters to IT techs to SGTs and above in the military to PhD diplomats..

And the small business person is part of that mix of workers and can be a jobs creation engine when the business is right..but most small businesses do not add jobs...but still more than larger firms. When government grows, it creates middle class jobs even more predictably and effeciently. (the only drawback is figuring out who pays for the government middle class jobs creation)

"So? It's still a massive compromise from what the constituents of those Congresspersons are demanding in the way of fiscal responsibility. What is the principle here? When debt and contracts are entered into foolishly that all of a sudden there is a politically-neutral necessity of eating that? A "bail them out" mentality with zero cost?"

Canuck should understand that when the cup has already run over, the last straw has broken the camel's back, or whatever, and the Pelosi Democrats are still hell-bent for the rim of the canyon (metaphor overload, anyone?), some people might get hurt, but it is imperative to get the steering wheel away from Thelma.

Love the critical comments from those who assume that I'm a hard core lefty----I'm from it.

I'd appreciate an educated and thoughtful response to my valid complaint regarding why I have to pay more taxes than Bill Gates. If we're all called to sacrifice, then the pain should be spread equally.

comment should have read something more along the lines of being "far from the left" what I would like to see is everyone paying their fair share and for a billionaire to pay less is quite frankly, ridiculous and disgusting when the majority of Americans are expected to pay more and accept changes to entitlements

But no one with any sense believes that once the crisis is averted that anyone will bother to "write a better budget." No one ever has before, after all.

So the Republicans (under the thumb of those pushing fiscal responsibility) are trying to enforce future good behavior on the part of our government as a condition of passing the crisis-relieving debt increase.

Consequences now, or even worse consequences later.

It seems those are the choices given us since averting the crisis while making d*mn sure the government is forced to cut back won't get past the Democrats.

I'd appreciate an educated and thoughtful response to my valid complaint regarding why I have to pay more taxes than Bill Gates. If we're all called to sacrifice, then the pain should be spread equally.

I don't know exactly why you pay more in taxes than Bill Gates, but I can guess: "The Tax Code."

I do know this - taking 100% of what Gates makes in a year, every year won't solve the debt / deficit problem. We can't tax our way out of this mess.

You don't have to, and you don't actually do so in any sense of the word.

Bill Gates owns a very expensive house (or set of houses). His property taxes are enormous.

Bill Gates owns a set of very expensive cars. The taxes on his car maintenance supplies are enormous. (Due to the quirk of public opinion in Washington State, car tabs no longer are assessed on the value of a car, so he probably pays nearly as much per car as anyone else. I'm not certain, but IIRC car tabs & other fees are just about the same for everyone in the same county.)

Bill Gates flies everywhere. He pays taxes on his tickets like everyone else.

His company flies him around? Then he pays taxes through his company.

He is very wealthy, far more than I am. He could easily pay twice as much in taxes and not be hurt.

But so far we don't really tax "wealth" in America if it's held in certain forms, such as stock or bonds or cash. He might pay property taxes on personal property, and other taxes on other taxable assets, but in general he is a free from a wealth tax as you are.

He definitely pays more income tax than you, and probably pays much more in sales taxes than you do. He probably pays more taxes for many more things than you do. And he has given away an enormous amount of money, which apparently isn't enough to satisfy people like you who only consider it "fair" if the government takes the money away through taxes.

He has a very simple solution to those who would want to tax wealth: move. Move to a different country who would welcome a wealth creator. Much of what he has created is fungible: it is knowledge and services which do not require the U.S. in order to thrive. (Soon knowledge-development companies like Microsoft and Amazon will learn that nothing keeps them in America except nostalgia. Nothing is preventing a new software locus to develop in, say, Singapore. Some day soon it will click for these companies that they can do the same thing for far less in overhead and taxes.) And people like you will learn again the old story of the golden goose and killing it to get all the eggs at once.

You might be trying to make the incoherent argument that Bill Gates should pay a higher rate of taxes than you. You haven't made the case why that's "fair." When I was growing up, "fair" was considered "even." In your world it seems "fair" now means "uneven."

Two years of a completely Democrat held House and Senate and no budget for two years. Sen. Kerry explains that quotes from Reid and Obama and Biden opposing debt limit increases are irrelevant because it wasn't a crisis back then. Rubio's point that no one bothered to do anything for two and a half years, stands. MY point that lacking a crisis there will be no fixes, also stands. Rubio explains that raising the debt ceiling without proving that necessary changes have been made won't help our credit rating.

Rubio says, over and over, that no proposals have been given for anyone to compromise with, except, finally, one from Reid that his own party won't vote for.

He also explicitly claims that the PLAN has always been to let the issue slide until it becomes a crisis no one has time to solve.

We will table all your bills and tell you up front we will not vote for them, then ask that our bills be voted on and not require 60 votes. Thats what the dems mean by compromise. F the dems.

The dems could have dealt with this a year ago, when they controlled both houses, but Harry Reid admitted they held out so as to essentially make the repubs take control of the economy, and they have yet to submit a budget, yet at every turn they demagogue the republicans. Again, f the dems.

"So the Republicans (under the thumb of those pushing fiscal responsibility) are trying to enforce future good behavior on the part of our government as a condition of passing the crisis-relieving debt increase.

To All Liberal Members of the Media (which is to say to nearly all of them), your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to make sure that conservatives get blamed for the coming default.

Accuracy is not expected (or desired). And for God's sake don't show your work. Just hammer home your conclusion--the Republicans did it; it's all their fault; Obama was only trying to do what's right for America.

There is only one actual, real compromise available: Raise the debt ceiling by enough to get us through 11 months.

1. The standard is 5-6 months. (That includes all of the Reagan times that Obama likes to reference.) Obama wants 18 months, 3x the norm. 2x the norm (10-12 months) is a decent compromise.2. The lowest amount that's been discussed is 0 months, but most agree that it needs to be increased for at least a "short" period of time. Since 5-6 months is the norm, a "short" amount would reasonably be less than half of that. I'll be generous and say it's 3 months. The highest amount that's been discussed is 18 months. The compromise is 10.5 months.3. That roughly averages out to 11 months.

The reason the cuts (but not taxes) are on the table is because enough people on one side do not want the ceiling raised at all.

If we got in the wayback machine, when Bush was president and the dems didn't want to increase the debt ceiling, a compromise might include a tax increase.

If you're gonna whine that the Dems had to eat their peas back then, and it's only fair for the Rs to take their turn eating peas, think about this: If you want tit for tat, then the debt ceiling can *only* be increased by the same amount as it was back then. (And that ain't 2 trillion.)

Out of curiosity, where is Nancy Pelosi's bill? What are her specific criticisms of the various bills that have passed the house?

Here's what Pelosi said about Boehner's bill.Summary: The bill will disrupt Medicare, mess with college loans, prioritize the rich above the middle class. The bill is a waste of time, since Rs were told it wouldn't pass the Senate. The stock market has been dropping ever since the Rs started walking away from the bargaining table. Ds cooperated re: TARP. It's immoral (as defined by her description of American values). The Balanced Budget Amendment is a see-saw in favor of the haves. The bill isn't serious; it's a strategic scheme. R bills are job-losers (not creators). The bill is an engine of destruction. The budget should be a statement of values that reflect America, Americans, the military, the founders, etc, and this bill doesn't do that. It just wastes time that could otherwise be spent creating jobs.

Joanna, that is a bullshit response by Pelosi, though maybe that was your point. Specific criticism means just that, not a laundry list of ideological sound bites and lies (for example; the Boehner bill does not end Medicare--utter lie.)

What most Democrats and liberal Republicans don't understand is that voters are tired of the empty promises about future action, about reducing the growth of government and calling it a cut and about holding onto programs that are well documented to be rife with fraud and abuse.